Difference between revisions of "Risk Register"
From MAGEEC
(Updated Risks) |
(Update risks with work packages, sort) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| High likelihood is as this hasn't been attempted before. Decouple from infrastructure development, allowing parallel development and use appropriate expert staff (Joern Rennecke). | | High likelihood is as this hasn't been attempted before. Decouple from infrastructure development, allowing parallel development and use appropriate expert staff (Joern Rennecke). | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | | + | | WP5 || Failure to identify viable features (technical issue) |
| − | | | + | | 4 || 3 || 12 |
| − | | | + | | Fallback is to use the MILEPOST features. We have started engagement with the MILEPOST team to gain from their experience as much as possible. |
|- | |- | ||
| WP1, WP2 || Compiler infrastructure cannot be made generic | | WP1, WP2 || Compiler infrastructure cannot be made generic | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
| 5 || 2 || 10 | | 5 || 2 || 10 | ||
| Regular meetings and prior experience in these fields. Manage interactions/dependencies between work packages and re-visit time allocations as more information arises. | | Regular meetings and prior experience in these fields. Manage interactions/dependencies between work packages and re-visit time allocations as more information arises. | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | All || Unable to recruit suitable staff | ||
| + | | 3 || 3 || 9 | ||
| + | | Already mitigated through existing experience and staff from all consortium members. People pipeline from UoB ensures high quality candidates. | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | WP4 || Data Gather phase taking too long due to board reliability | ||
| + | | 3 || 2 || 6 | ||
| + | | Exploration of a smaller data set whilst full data gather occurs and redundancy of boards. | ||
|- | |- | ||
| All || Failure of consortium to work together | | All || Failure of consortium to work together | ||
| Line 40: | Line 48: | ||
| Consortium has already worked together. | | Consortium has already worked together. | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | | + | | WP3 || Board v4 doesn't work |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| 2 || 1 || 2 | | 2 || 1 || 2 | ||
| Continue to use existing board. (v4 board is nice to have) | | Continue to use existing board. (v4 board is nice to have) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
|} | |} | ||
[[Category:Planning]] | [[Category:Planning]] | ||
Revision as of 08:54, 4 September 2013
The following describes the risks to this project, their likelihood and impact on the project, as well as procedures for mitigating the risk.
For each risk, the likelihood of it occurring is rated on a scale of 1 (very unlikely) to 10 (certain to happen) and the impact of this occurring is rated on a scale of 1 (minor impact), 2 (significant impact), 3 (total wipe out of the project). Risk is calculated as the product of the two numbers.
A risk mitigation strategy is provided when the risk is greater than or equal to 10 or where the impact is 3.
| Work Package | Description | Likelihood | Impact | Risk | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WP7 | The compiler infrastructure does not work for energy | 5 | 3 | 15 | The system would be reconfigured for speed minimisation based on experience that a) this is possible (MILEPOST) and b) speed is a rough proxy for energy. However, this does not represent as significant advance on current knowledge, but does make it more accessible. |
| WP9 | Compiler energy efficiency optimisation passes yield no measurable benefit | 7 | 2 | 14 | High likelihood is as this hasn't been attempted before. Decouple from infrastructure development, allowing parallel development and use appropriate expert staff (Joern Rennecke). |
| WP5 | Failure to identify viable features (technical issue) | 4 | 3 | 12 | Fallback is to use the MILEPOST features. We have started engagement with the MILEPOST team to gain from their experience as much as possible. |
| WP1, WP2 | Compiler infrastructure cannot be made generic | 5 | 2 | 10 | Ensuring good interface design before building infrastructure. Note that non-fully generic solution still has value. |
| All | Loss of key personnel | 5 | 2 | 10 | Ensure the consortium has multiple people skilled in each area. Note that the area of compiler optimisation (WP8) has one person covering this, but is a smaller part of the project. |
| WP10 | Failure to engage with open source communities. | 5 | 2 | 10 | Early and open discussions with the relevant communities (already started). Appointment of project member (Andrew Back, AB Open) charged with driving this very time consuming activity. |
| All | Milestones not met | 5 | 2 | 10 | Regular meetings and prior experience in these fields. Manage interactions/dependencies between work packages and re-visit time allocations as more information arises. |
| All | Unable to recruit suitable staff | 3 | 3 | 9 | Already mitigated through existing experience and staff from all consortium members. People pipeline from UoB ensures high quality candidates. |
| WP4 | Data Gather phase taking too long due to board reliability | 3 | 2 | 6 | Exploration of a smaller data set whilst full data gather occurs and redundancy of boards. |
| All | Failure of consortium to work together | 2 | 2 | 4 | Consortium has already worked together. |
| WP3 | Board v4 doesn't work | 2 | 1 | 2 | Continue to use existing board. (v4 board is nice to have) |
